Each day we overwhelm your brains with the content you've come to love from the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website.
But Facebook is...you know, Facebook. Their algorithm hides our ranting and raving as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface?
Sign up for the LWC News Blast! Get your favorite right-wing commentary delivered directly to your inbox!
VICTORY: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Crisis Pregnancy Centers
Usually these cases aren't as black and white as advertised. But when it came to National Institute of Family and Life Advocates vs. Becerra, the Attorney General of California, the issue was right down the First Amendment's center plate. The original case stated that crisis pregnancy centers had to advertise for abortion. Which ran counter to the beliefs of the pro-life pregnancy centers. Pro-aborts in California, who are not "pro-choice" as much as they are "kill the fetus!" didn't like pro-life crisis pregnancy centers saving babies. So they sued.
Too bad, so sad, the Supreme Court narrowly voted in support of the crisis pregnancy centers:
The licensed notice likely violates the First Amendment. Content-based laws “target speech based on its communicative content” and “are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S.
Here's the gist: you cannot compel someone to say something simply because you don't like what they're saying. The Ninth Circuit tried skirting the First Amendment by stating the crisis pregnancy centers were "professional" and thus had to inform their clients about abortion. SCOTUS shot that down, too:
...By compelling petitioners to speak a particular message, it “alters the content of [their] speech.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 795. For example, one of the statesponsored services that the licensed notice requires petitioners to advertise is abortion—the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing. Although the licensed notice is content-based, the Ninth Circuit did not apply strict scrutiny because it concluded that the notice regulates “professional speech.” But this Court has never recognized “professional speech” as a separate category of speech subject to different rules.
Kind of like "hate speech," there is no distinguishing factor for "professional speech" which must oblige by different rules written where, exactly? The First Amendment doesn't qualify certain speech, thus separating speech for different rules.
The court continued:
Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals. The Court has afforded less protection for professional speech in two circumstances—where a law requires professionals to disclose factual, noncontroversial information in their “commercial speech,” see, e.g., Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, 651, and where States regulate professional conduct that incidentally involves speech, see, e.g., Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S. 447, 456. Neither line of precedents is implicated here.
So while the Colorado Baker case was much more nuanced, this one is pretty straight forward. The state cannot compel pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for services they don't like, simply because the California Attorney General Becerra, an abortion tyrant, deems them "professional."
You cannot simply label your opposition something in efforts to FORCE THEM to do something they find contemptible.
This is the left. They don't want you to have choices. They don't want you to have freedom. It's their way, their rules, and if you don't follow those rules, you'll have to contend with their rage, legally executed or via a mob.